820705_routine_20230404

Type of Visit: O Compliance Inspection V Operation Review V Structure Evaluation V i ecnnical Assistance I
Reason for Visit: 0 Routine 0 Complaint 0 Follow-up 0 Referral 0 Emergency 0 Other 0 Denied Access
Date of Visit: -�� Arrival Time: 50 Departure Time: t `??0 County: SaCn�S�}`� Region: f�
Farm Name: J Q wtQ LO I I 1 D
Owner Name: � Q h( e� Lamb
Mailing Address:
Physical Address:
Owner Email:
Phone:
Facility Contact: ME La Mo Title: DUB W- Phone: /p�
Onsite Representative: O r r, e Integrator: � r-P �1 N �-C..
Certified Operator
Back-up Operator:
Location of Farm:
Sa R) e
Latitude:
Certification Number: loolo (oco
Certification Number:
Longitude:
vesign „Current esign Currenrrent
Swine'' Capacity {,I'op. Wet Pouittry Capacity Pop: Cattle Capacity Pop
Wean to Finish
Wean to Feeder
Feeder to Finish
Farrow to Wean
Farrow to Feeder
Farrow to Finish
Gilts
Boars
Layer
Non -Layer
- Design Current
1Dry Poultr' r Capaciti ' Poj . .
Layers
Non -Layers
Pullets
Turkeys
Turkey Poults
Other
Discharges and Stream Impacts
1. Is any discharge observed from any part of the operation?
Discharge originated at: ❑ Structure ❑ Application Field ❑ Other:
Dairy Cow
Dairy Calf
Dairy Heifer
Dry Cow
Non -Dairy
Beef Stocker
Beef Feeder
Beef Brood Cow
❑ Yes �n No ❑ NA ❑ NE
a. Was the conveyance man-made? ❑; Yes , No ❑ NA ❑-NE-
r--�• ;
b. Did the discharge reach waters of the State? (If yes, notify DWR) < ❑ Yes'" No ❑ NA ❑ NE
r
c. What is the estimated volume that reached waters of the State (gallons)?`'k'
d. Does the discharge bypass the waste management system? (If yes, notify DWR) ❑ Yes No ❑ NA ❑ NE
2. Is there evidence of a past discharge from any part of the operation? ❑ Yes TJ -No ❑, NA ❑ NE
3. Were there any observable adverse impacts or potential adverse impacts to the waters ❑ Yes 'No Q NA ❑ NE
of the State other than from a discharge?
Page 1 of 3 511212020 Continued..

Facility Number: Y�2 - —Jo Date of Inspection: y 41 v3
Waste Collection & Treatment
4. Is storage capacity (structural plus storm storage plus heavy rainfall) less than adequate?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
a. If yes, is waste level into the structural freeboard?
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Structure 1 Structure 2 Structure 3 Structure 4
Structure 5
Structure 6
Identifier:
Spillway?: N 0
Designed Freeboard (in): N • 5
Observed Freeboard (in): � 01-
5. Are there any immediate threats to the integrity of any of the structures observed?
❑ Yes]
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(i.e., large trees, severe erosion, seepage, etc.)
6. Are there structures on -site which are not properly addressed and/or managed through a
❑ Yes
j)_0 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
waste management or closure plan?
If any of questions 4-6 were answered yes, and the situation poses an immediate public health or environmental
threat, notify DWR
7. Do any of the structures need maintenance or improvement?
❑ Yes
[A No
❑ NA
❑ NE
8. Do any of the structures lack adequate markers as required by the permit?
❑ Yes
Ek No
❑ NA
❑ NE
(not applicable to roofed pits, dry stacks, and/or wet stacks)
9. Does any part of the waste management system other than the waste structures require
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
Waste Application
10. Are there any required buffers, setbacks, or compliance alternatives that need
❑ Yes
[4 No
❑ NA
❑ NE
maintenance or improvement?
11. Is there evidence of incorrect land application? If yes, check the appropriate box below. ❑ Yes M No ❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Excessive Ponding ❑ Hydraulic Overload ❑ Frozen Ground ❑ Heavy Metals (Cu, Zn, etc.)
❑ PAN ❑ PAN > 10% or 10 lbs. ❑ Total Phosphorus ❑ Failure to Incorporate Manure/Sludge into Bare Soil
❑ Outside of Acceptable Crop Window u `'❑ Evidence of Wind Drift ❑ Application Outside of Approved Area
12. Crop Type(s): �2rf n U d al I I Q J l oyn1 (t .t 4
13. Soil Type(s): ND r�N V
14. Do the receiving crops differ from those designated in the CAWMP?
❑ Yes
Z No
❑ NA
❑ NE
15. Does the receiving crop and/or land application site need improvement?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
16. Did the facility fail to secure and/or operate per the irrigation design or wettable
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
acres determination?
17. Does the facility lack adequate acreage for land application?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
18. Is there a lack of properly operating waste application equipment?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Required Records & Documents
19. Did the facility fail to have the Certificate of Coverage & Permit readily available?
❑ Yes
[RNo
❑ NA
❑ NE
20. Does the facility fail to have all components of the CAWMP readily available? If yes, check
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA
❑ NE
the appropriate box.
❑ WUP ❑ Checklists [:]Design ❑ Maps [:]Lease Agreements
❑ Other:
21. Does record keeping need improvement? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
'L)IJ No
❑ NA
❑ NE
❑ Waste Application ❑ Weekly Freeboard ❑ Waste Analysis ❑ Soil Analysis
❑ Waste Transfers
❑ Weather Code
❑ Rainfall ❑ Stocking ❑ Crop Yield ❑ 120 Minute Inspections ❑ Monthly and 1" Rainfall Inspections ❑ Sludge Survey
22. Did the facility fail to install and maintain a rain gauge?
❑ Yes
t No
DNA
❑ NE
23. If selected, did the facility fail to install and maintain rainbreakers on irrigation equipment?
❑ Yes
It No
❑ NA
❑ NE
Page 2 of 3
511212020 Continued

Facility Number: - JDDate of Inspection: • %
24. Did the facility fail to calibrate waste application equipment as required by the permit? ❑ Yes V1 No
25. Is the facility out of compliance with permit conditions related to sludge? If yes, check ❑ Yes [ No
the appropriate box(es) below.
❑ Failure to complete annual sludge survey ❑ Failure to develop a POA for sludge levels
❑ Non -compliant sludge levels in any lagoon
List structure(s) and date of first survey indicating non-compliance:
26. Did the facility fail to provide documentation of an actively certified operator in charge? ❑ Yes [] No
27. Did the facility fail to secure a phosphorus loss assessments (PLAT) certification? ❑ Yes No
❑NA ❑NE
❑NA ❑NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ NA ❑ NE
Other Issues
28. Did the facility fail to properly dispose of dead animals with 24 hours and/or document
❑ Yes
�Q No
❑ NA ❑ NE
and report mortality rates that were higher than normal?
29. At the time of the inspection did the facility pose an odor or air quality concern?
❑ Yes
� '] No
❑ NA ❑ NE
If yes, contact a regional Air Quality representative immediately.
30. Did the facility fail to notify the Regional Office of emergency situations as required by the
❑ Yes
t No
❑ NA ❑ NE
permit? (i.e., discharge, freeboard problems, over -application)
31. Do subsurface tile drains exist at the facility? If yes, check the appropriate box below.
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
❑ Application Field ❑ Lagoon/Storage Pond ❑ Other:
32. Were any additional problems noted which cause non-compliance of the permit or CAWMP?
❑ Yes
No
❑ NA ❑ NE
33. Did the Reviewer/Inspector fail to discuss review/inspection with an on -site representative?
❑ Yes
E� No
❑ NA ❑ NE
34. Does the facility require a follow-up visit by the same agency?
❑ Yes
J� No
❑ NA ❑ NE
Comments (refer to question #): Explain any YES answers and/or any additional recommendations or any other comments.
Use drawings of facility to better explain situations (use additional pages as necessary).
firm � Pec�r�: �ioDK. food
Reviewer/Inspector Name:
Reviewer/Inspector Signature:
Page 3 of 3
a�h-e Fon
Kc�-ie
crop � 1'-�S o
ralnfQ 11
CQlibr�"1UI�Iti/
CDC✓
sioyJ
(D°il Qhf�1�1�
Phone: �1
Date: -Lq 13
511212020